NAI and the $65 (intro) US to Europe Fare
02-25-2017, 06:41 AM
#41
Layover Master
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Seated
Posts: 4,311
Originally Posted by Csy Mon
They are losing money based on every ticket sold, but making up for it selling food, drinks, ear phones, blankets, etc.
02-25-2017, 08:02 AM
#42
Retired.
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by PotatoChip
If they are "making up for it" than they aren't losing money.
I said earlier, Norwegian Air is loosing money, that was old information: They turned the corner a few years ago and went from red to black on the bottom line.
Now they have massive debts however and if they have to pay industry standards for crews, I can't see how they can keep selling cheap tickets forever. Airplanes cost more or less the same, so does fuel. Investors wants return on the money, etc..
02-25-2017, 12:08 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Position: 6th place
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Csy Mon
True, as long as they can sell the extras onboard, and charge for stuff like assigned seat, fast track through security, they are doing ok I guess.
I said earlier, Norwegian Air is loosing money, that was old information: They turned the corner a few years ago and went from red to black on the bottom line.
Now they have massive debts however and if they have to pay industry standards for crews, I can't see how they can keep selling cheap tickets forever. Airplanes cost more or less the same, so does fuel. Investors wants return on the money, etc..
I said earlier, Norwegian Air is loosing money, that was old information: They turned the corner a few years ago and went from red to black on the bottom line.
Now they have massive debts however and if they have to pay industry standards for crews, I can't see how they can keep selling cheap tickets forever. Airplanes cost more or less the same, so does fuel. Investors wants return on the money, etc..
AA has massive debt as well. Doesn't stop them from making money.
02-25-2017, 12:44 PM
#44
Retired.
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
AA has massive debt as well. Doesn't stop them from making money.
What if NAI have to do the same to attract candidates?
No more $99 tickets across the pond.
02-25-2017, 04:56 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Position: 6th place
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Csy Mon
Yeah and AA pays industry wages and benefits.
What if NAI have to do the same to attract candidates?
No more $99 tickets across the pond.
What if NAI have to do the same to attract candidates?
No more $99 tickets across the pond.
Well I wouldn't say AA has industry standard wages and benefits lol.
And plus pilot labor cost is a very small expense in the grand scheme of things.
02-25-2017, 05:39 PM
#46
Retired.
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
Well I wouldn't say AA has industry standard wages and benefits lol.
And plus pilot labor cost is a very small expense in the grand scheme of things.
And plus pilot labor cost is a very small expense in the grand scheme of things.
Pilot labor cost is a very small expense? Sure, another reason NAI should pay industry standard rates instead of flagging out and try to get guys to sign a contract for half price.
It is a free country, if you want to work there, knock yourself out.
02-25-2017, 06:09 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Position: 6th place
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Csy Mon
I didn't say industry leading, I said industry standard: In pattern bargaining there is always somebody with better deals. Last time I checked AA paid more that $300 an hour for a senior Captain's seat.
Pilot labor cost is a very small expense? Sure, another reason NAI should pay industry standard rates instead of flagging out and try to get guys to sign a contract for half price.
It is a free country, if you want to work there, knock yourself out.
Pilot labor cost is a very small expense? Sure, another reason NAI should pay industry standard rates instead of flagging out and try to get guys to sign a contract for half price.
It is a free country, if you want to work there, knock yourself out.
Dude I work for AA. $300/hr for less than 10% of the pilots. Still no work rules or profit sharing.
I'm just pointing out what NAI is doing is legal under the US-EU open skies treaty that Bush 2 signed. It's crap but it is what it is. Better hope the legacies take it serious and compete accordingly.
02-26-2017, 12:20 AM
#48
Retired.
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 414
More on the $69 fares:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ckly?CMP=fb_gu
You brought up AA, I didn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ckly?CMP=fb_gu
Dude I work for AA. $300/hr for less than 10% of the pilots. Still no work rules or profit sharing.
02-26-2017, 04:56 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
I'm just pointing out what NAI is doing is legal under the US-EU open skies treaty that Bush 2 signed. It's crap but it is what it is. Better hope the legacies take it serious and compete accordingly.
Everything NAI is doing is 100% legal and in compliance with all treaties. Even the DOT attorneys investigating the matter have said there is no legal basis for denying NAI.
So my question(s) is/are - what is the end game here? Do you think this will be a simple case of the U.S. revoking a legally issued permit on zero legal grounds? Do you think there will be no repercussions, that the E.U. will simply roll over and say that it is okay for the U.S. to arbitrarily deny European airlines without legal justification? Who do you think will benefit from an E.U. - U.S. airline trade war? Will pilots benefit if the "Open Skies" treaty is revoked?
Anyone care to answer?
02-26-2017, 06:14 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by NEDude
This brings up a question I have asked numerous times yet nobody has answered that I have seen.
Everything NAI is doing is 100% legal and in compliance with all treaties. Even the DOT attorneys investigating the matter have said there is no legal basis for denying NAI.
So my question(s) is/are - what is the end game here? Do you think this will be a simple case of the U.S. revoking a legally issued permit on zero legal grounds? Do you think there will be no repercussions, that the E.U. will simply roll over and say that it is okay for the U.S. to arbitrarily deny European airlines without legal justification? Who do you think will benefit from an E.U. - U.S. airline trade war? Will pilots benefit if the "Open Skies" treaty is revoked?
Anyone care to answer?
Everything NAI is doing is 100% legal and in compliance with all treaties. Even the DOT attorneys investigating the matter have said there is no legal basis for denying NAI.
So my question(s) is/are - what is the end game here? Do you think this will be a simple case of the U.S. revoking a legally issued permit on zero legal grounds? Do you think there will be no repercussions, that the E.U. will simply roll over and say that it is okay for the U.S. to arbitrarily deny European airlines without legal justification? Who do you think will benefit from an E.U. - U.S. airline trade war? Will pilots benefit if the "Open Skies" treaty is revoked?
Anyone care to answer?
